Analysing environmental opinion using highly customisable visualisation tools to understand citizens’ attitudes and barriers

Knowledge of public opinion is key to understanding citizens' attitudes towards environmental policies. However, large polls and surveys generate complex datasets from which it is not always easy to draw conclusions. In addition, tailor-made solutions for analysing public opinion face the challenge of handling too many layers of information, which can easily lead to an overwhelming user experience and impair decision-making. Service design methodologies can support the design of ad hoc visualisation tools focused on user needs. We present Op-e-nion, a case study of a visualisation tool for the analysis of public opinion regarding environmental issues, aimed at administrations and public institutions. The involvement of experts from different fields allowed for the identification of the main metrics necessary to target the least engaged socio-demographic groups as well as the barriers that limited their environmental actions. Experts also highlighted useful aspects of the design process and the final prototype to help them define more effective campaigns and policies to address social challenges and promote citizen action. An innovative step was introduced in the methodology by involving non-state actors in the evaluation of the tool, ensuring problem detection and enhancing the sustainability of the final product. Important aspects for the visualisation of multi-categorical data included simplifying the interaction with the tool while prioritising relevant information, and using highly customizable visualisations to answer specific user requirements and changing needs (i.e. analytical vs. managerial tasks). Improved visualisations of public opinion data will, in turn, better support the development of policies shaped by citizens’ concerns.

The variables are represented in table A1.We group them by category according to their area of scope (citizen empowerment, impact on health and environment, responsibility and EU policy obligations).Information about the type of answer is also included (See Table A.1).Some other information, distributed in different tabs referred to the lack of actions by citizens or inconsistencies between concerns and actions: For example, some respondents claimed to be concerned about specific environmental issues (pollution, drinking water, plastic production, climate change, etc.), but, in spite of these claims, did not carry out any corrective actions to improve the situation relative to what they were concerned about.They were classified by potential users in ten categories that related concerns expressed and actions with their impact in each category.This information is included in Table A.1 and A.2.

Empowerment
Type of answer (Very important -Not at all important) How important is protecting the environment to you personally?
Impact Type of answer (Totally agree -Totally disagree) -As an individual, you can play a role in protecting the environment in your country.
-Environmental issues have a direct effect on your daily life and health.
-You are worried about the impact of everyday products made of plastic / chemicals on your health.
-You are worried about the impact of everyday products made of plastic / chemicals on the environment.

Responsibility
Type of answer (Totally agree -Totally disagree) -The big polluters should be mainly responsible for making good the environmental damage they cause.
-In your opinion, is each of the following currently doing too much, about the right amount, or not enough to protect the environment?a) Big companies and industry b) Citizens themselves c) Your region /area d) Your country / National government e) The EU

EU Policy Obligations
Type of answer (Totally agree -Totally disagree) -EU environmental legislation is necessary for protecting the environment in your country -The EU should be able to check that EU environmental laws are being applied correctly in your country -The EU should assist non-EU countries to improve their environmental standards

Level of activity
Many -Some -Few -One -None (actions)

Information channels
-National newspapers -Regional or local newspapers -Magazines -TV News -Radio -Films and documentaries on television -Family, friends, neighbours or colleagues -Books or scientific publications -Brochures or information materials -Events (conferences, fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc.) -Museums, national or regional parks -Online social networks -The Internet (other websites, blogs, forums, etc.)

Appendix B -Test environment and Tasks
Below we describe the statements and conditions of each of the tasks presented in the user test.

Table B.1 User testing tasks (Evaluation Phase II with non-state actors).
Task 1: Identify the three countries on the map which are less committed to the environment.
Task 2: Which are the two least committed socio-demographic groups for Austria with regards to the environment?Task 3: Imagine that we want to compare the level of commitment for the 'Unemployed' socio-demographic group for the countries displayed/expanded.Which country has the least and the most committed Unemployed group?Task 4: Imagine that we want to analyse the particularities of the socio-demographic groups that present incongruences.That is to say citizens that manifest differences between worries and actions to tackle environmental issues.Can you tell which these socio-demographic groups are and the channels of information that they get information from for France?

Success
Error/failure Time 1 The user correctly identifies the least committed countries: Hungary, Italy and Austria The user identifies the wrong countries or they mention just one/two of them.
The time is measured from the time the visualisation is presented, to the time the user starts to talk.The time is measured from the time the visualisation is presented, to the time the user starts to talk.

B.1 Participants of the Cognitive Walkthrough (CW)
The participants were drawn from two different participant profiles: The first group profile consisted of five potential users (three men and two women) between the ages of 42 and 56.The second group profile consisted of five experts in the following fields: Data visualisation, two men aged 36 and 46, User experience (UX) two women aged 45 and 39, and Graphic design, one woman aged 28.Neither group received any remuneration/compensation for their participation.

B.2 Conditions of the CW
Prior to the test, we carried out a short context introduction session 2,3 where the participants filled out a standard bioethics form to confirm and accept their voluntary contribution to the research.
Participants were also informed that their questions, actions and comments would be collected.The study was performed in person using a laptop (MacBook Pro 13-inch, 2017, 3.1 GHz and 16 GB RAM) and connected to a 27'' 4K BenQ display (3840x2160).The users freely interacted with the tool (they were not required to perform any set task) and could explore the different views and visualisations.

B.3 Test participants (Non-state actors)
For this study we used a convenience sample of 20 individuals, comprising 9 men and 11 women between the ages of 25 and 62.All the participants were familiar with environmental policy design, but none of them had deep knowledge of advanced visualisation tools.The participants were non-state actors (NsAs) which comprised members of NGOs, biodiversity firms and epistemic communities.Prior to the test sessions, users were asked not to have consumed stimulant substances that could have enhanced or distorted the test performance as well as the test results and cognitive load perception metrics.
The test sessions were carried out over a three-week period.All participants completed the experiment and no data was deleted.The participants did not receive any remuneration/compensation for their participation.

B.4 Context and pilot test
Prior to the non-state actors test, we carried out a short context introduction session 2,3 where each of the participants filled out a standard bioethics form to confirm and accept their voluntary participation in the research.They were also informed of the purpose of the tool and the main goals of the different views.The participants also completed a short questionnaire with details on their age, level of visualisation expertise, experience, skills and confirmed that none of them suffered from colour blindness.
Moreover, a pilot testing session was also carried out with an individual under the same conditions presented to the rest of the users.This pilot test was conducted in order to detect potential problems related to the design of the test itself 4,5 .The results of this pilot did not form part of the final study results.

B.5 Test environment
We developed a simple online prototype using Axure RP10, to present participants with a very environment to the final functional tool while they performed the test.We presented each of the tasks one-by-one.The test was controlled by a moderator who assisted the participants during the tasks.
This assistance consisted of answering any questions related to the task statements but not in helping to solve the tasks themselves or giving any clues on the solutions 6 .The sessions were also recorded in order to be able to review the results in terms of quantitative data (time and success rates) and qualitative data (opinions and valuations).
The test was performed remotely using the ZOOM tool by sharing different links to a functional prototype to access the different tasks.
Participants were informed that times and results, together with their comments, would also be collected.The study was performed using a laptop (MacBook Pro 13-inch, 2017, 3.1 GHz and 16 GB RAM).
After having read the statement, and confirming to the moderator that they were ready, the time to perform the task was measured from the moment the visualisation appeared on the screen and until the participant gave the answer (see Table B.2 of this Appendix).

B.6 Task-based questions (Quantitative evaluation)
During the task-based part of the study, the participants answered five questions about different visualisations available in the tool.More details on the task performance are presented in Table B.1 of this Appendix.
The results of each task ('success', 'error', and 'drop off' or 'abandonment' rates) as well as the completion times needed to perform each task were gathered.Drop off metrics measured the number of users who abandoned the task without completing it (in this case due to the difficulty of the task) 7 .
Men / Women Age: 15-24 / 25-39 / 40-55 / 55+ Socio-professional category: Self-employed / Managers / White collar workers / Manual workers / House persons / Unemployed / Retired / Student Marital Status: Married / Single living with a partner / Single / Divorced / Widowed Difficulty paying bills: Always / Frome time to time / Never Considered as belonging to: Working class / Lower-middle class / Middle class / Upper-middle class / Upper class Living in: Rural village / Small town / Large town Politics: Left / Centre / Right Internet use: Everyday / Often / Never

Task 5 :
Find the way to access the Summary View?Which are the two least committed socio-demographic groups-countries in Europe?Table B.2 Task statement, success and error definitions, and time measurement description for Task-based questions (quantitative evaluation).

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: A selection of sample designs considered during the conceptualization phase.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Colours used for the different variables available in the tool: (a) Dark background.(b) Light background.All of them were specifically designed to avoid problems with colour blind users.

Table A .2 Information to define inconsistencies
-Buy local products (Related to 7,1,3) -Use your car less by avoiding unnecessary trips, working from home (teleworking), etc.(7,3)

Table A . 3
Social categories with socio-demographic groups selected from the Eurobarometer